2013 (4) TMI 965 - SC - Indian Laws

Land reservation in Maharashtra lapses if not acquired within 6 months of notice under Section 127.

Shrirampur Municipal Council, Shrirampur Versus Satyabhamabai Bhimaji Dawkher and Ors.

Shrirampur Municipal Council, Shrirampur Versus Satyabhamabai Bhimaji Dawkher and Ors. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Whether reservation of land in Regional/Development plans under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (the 1966 Act) lapses if not acquired or steps for acquisition are not initiated within six months of notice u/s 127 of the 1966 Act.Issue-wise Comprehensive Details:1. Reservation of Land and Lapse due to Non-Acquisition:The primary issue was whether the reservation of parcels of land owned by the Respondents in the Regional/Development plans prepared under the 1966 Act will be deemed to have lapsed because the same were not acquired or no steps were commenced within six months of the service of notice u/s 127 of the 1966 Act. The court examined various appeals where the Respondents' lands were reserved for public purposes like playgrounds, schools, and parks, but the acquisition process was not completed within the stipulated time. 2. Interpretation of Section 127 of the 1966 Act:The court analyzed the interpretation of Section 127, which mandates that if any land reserved for public purposes is not acquired within ten years or if proceedings for acquisition are not commenced within six months of the notice, the reservation shall lapse. The court reiterated that the expression 'no steps as aforesaid are commenced' refers to active steps leading to the publication of the declaration u/s 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the 1894 Act).3. Judicial Precedents and Majority Judgment in Girnar Traders (II):The court referred to the majority judgment in Girnar Traders (II), which held that mere passing of a resolution or sending a letter to the Collector does not constitute the commencement of acquisition proceedings. The court emphasized that the steps towards acquisition must lead to the publication of the declaration u/s 6 of the 1894 Act.4. Arguments by Appellants and Respondents:The Appellants argued that the majority judgment in Girnar Traders (II) should be reconsidered by a larger Bench, claiming it was contrary to the plain language of Section 127 and earlier judgments. They contended that passing resolutions and sending communications to the District Collector should be considered as steps towards acquisition. The Respondents supported the impugned orders, arguing that the majority view in Girnar Traders (II) was consistent with the statutory provisions and judicial precedents.5. Court's Analysis and Conclusion:The court concluded that there was no conflict between the judgments in Dr. Hakimwadi Tenants' Association and Girnar Traders (II). It upheld the majority view in Girnar Traders (II), stating that the steps towards acquisition must lead to the publication of the declaration u/s 6 of the 1894 Act. The court emphasized that the legislative intent was to ensure prompt acquisition and prevent indefinite deprivation of property without compensation.Final Judgment:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the majority judgment in Girnar Traders (II) lays down the correct law and does not require reconsideration by a larger Bench. The court affirmed the High Court's orders declaring that the reservations lapsed due to non-acquisition within the stipulated time.